People v. Bell-Scott, 666

• Decision Date: 08 June 2018
• Docket Number: 666,KA 17–00993
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Ramel BELL–SCOTT, Defendant–Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

162 A.D.3d 1558
78 N.Y.S.3d 846

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant,
v.
Ramel BELL–SCOTT, Defendant–Respondent.

666
KA 17–00993

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

Entered: June 8, 2018

WILLIAM J. FITZPATRICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, SYRACUSE (VICTORIA M. WHITE OF COUNSEL), FOR APPELLANT.

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CARNI, DEJOSEPH, NEMOYER, AND CURRAN, JJ.

78 N.Y.S.3d 847

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law, that part of the omnibus motion seeking to suppress defendant's statements is denied, and the matter is remitted to Supreme Court, Onondaga County, for further proceedings on the indictment.

Memorandum: The People appeal from an order granting that part of defendant's omnibus motion seeking to suppress oral statements that he made to Syracuse Police detectives. We agree with the People that Supreme Court erred in suppressing those statements, and we therefore reverse the order, deny that part of the omnibus motion seeking suppression of defendant's statements and remit the matter to Supreme Court for further proceedings on the indictment.

Contrary to the court's conclusion, the evidence at the Huntley hearing establishes that defendant was not in custody when he made the statements, and thus Miranda warnings were not required (see generally Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 467, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 [1966] ). "In determining whether a defendant was in custody for Miranda purposes, ‘[t]he test is not what the defendant thought, but rather what a reasonable [person], innocent of any crime, would have thought had he [or she] been in the defendant's position’ " ( People v. Kelley, 91 A.D.3d 1318, 1318, 937 N.Y.S.2d 514 [4th Dept. 2012], lv denied 19 N.Y.3d 963, 950 N.Y.S.2d 115, 973 N.E.2d 213 [2012], quoting People v. Yukl, 25 N.Y.2d 585, 589, 307 N.Y.S.2d 857, 256 N.E.2d 172 [1969], cert denied 400 U.S. 851, 91 S.Ct. 78, 27 L.Ed.2d 89 [1970] ). We reject defendant's contention that the People failed to meet their "burden of showing that [he]...